Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H.:"Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's EnigmA, p.100'The lack of proof for a theory should tell you that it's not probable to work on, and that you should pursue other optional theories. If there aren't any hope of finding that you can then go and look for whitewash. If you don't work after that principle, the logic sais you'd trown a lot of resources of something that wasn't very credible in the first place. The outlook of finding anything that'll show the theory's correspondence with reality is getting less and less probable. Why should scientist around the world then put so mutch of their money to evolution and even let it support theories within other fields of science than just paleontology (the one that it perhaps might belong to and where it doesn't affect our progress in IT or medicine), if it even isn't fit to fight/stand its ground in its own homefield, why should it be used elsewhere? I'm talking about geology, where tree of evolution and it's time accord; they sometimes time stamp different geological segments of the earth after witch fossil findings who's found in that segment of the earths inner. And sometimes if they find a new fossil they date it after the age that geological segment. So this is a big problem also. It doesn't stop there they use the badly underbuilt evolution theory to chart medecine and theory too. This eats up resources and delay real results from all the scientific labor. And it diverts people from the truth, and real and trustworthy scientific results.
(R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all." Paleobiology, Vol.3, p.136
S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly...a punctuational model of evolution...operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them - in small, localized, transitory populations...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found." p.77, 110, New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981
So start looking for the truth and don't believe the bad excuses for a theory that wasn't really that convincing in the first place. DNA, RNA, peecocks, the human brain, our self consciousness, isn't a coincidence. Our world isn't a mere coincidence. It's a miracle to unlikely to be created by chance, and it's not unscientific to be led by that notion in your scientific work.